October 29, 2011

Castellucci's Christophobia: Teaching Children the Art of the Antichrist

When presented in Paris, the new and highly controversial theater piece by Romeo Castellucci drew out many protestors. According to the Associated Press, "The mayor of Paris says the city is filing legal complaints against fundamentalist Christians protesting a play at the municipal theater they claim is blasphemous."[1]

In terms of subject matter, Anti-Christian plays and art have been seen before. Andres Serrano's "Piss Christ" from 1987 was one of the earlier human-waste-Christ transpositions. Piss Christ, however, was attacked and broken in the Avignon Art Gallery in April 2011. In the case of Castellucci's work, perhaps the most controversial twist is to have children hurling objects at the image of Christ, which then oozes what appears to be fecal matter. It's not clear what the main drama was intended to be, the actions on the stage, or the protests by the largely Catholic public.

The play, "Sur le Concept du Visage du fils de Dieu" ("On the Concept of the Son of God's Face"), includes a very central theme of Christophobia, "in which projectiles are thrown at the face of Christ hanging onstage." It wasn't clear to me at first what the "projectiles" were, but they seem to be amorphous plastic forms, and, in the context of the play, it suggests that the children are (metaphorically somehow) tossing fecal matter at the hanging image. This tossing action helps the children to tangibly interact with the scatological narrative of the play.

The mayor of Paris said the government couldn't tolerate any public demonstrations against the play, "such expressions of fundamentalism and intolerance." But who is really being intolerant here? The Parisian government cannot tolerate public demonstrations by fundamentalist Christians, but this play, funded with public financing, seems quite intolerant of Christians. I doubt the openly gay mayor of Paris, Bertrand Delano, would tolerate a play wherein people threw things at images of homosexuals as a fecal-like substance proceeded to ooze out of the homosexual portraits. A Paris correspondent, Jeanne Smits, described some of the details of the second night of the performance in Paris on October 21:

"A few dozen young French Catholics chained themselves to the railings of the theater under the noses of three vanloads of riot police (“CRS”) who quickly closed in to dislodge them. Heavy-handedly using their bats and teargas, the armored police forces beat up the young people, handcuffed them and forced many of them flat on the ground."[2]

Smits goes on in more detail about the play's narrative: "On the Concept of the Face of the Son of God is a scatological representation of an old man wracked with diarrhea whose son wipes and cleans him repeatedly on stage under a large reproduction of a Face of Christ by Antonello da Messina. Brown feces fill the stage – synthetic odor included -, the two actors leave the stage, then a dozen children carrying schoolbags make their appearance and throw plastic grenades at the image of Christ. The image later appears to crack up and a dark liquid similar to the feces seen earlier invades the face which is then covered with the words, “You are not my shepherd”.[3] The following video shows the children hurling objects at Christ's image.[4]

While blocking the show and pelting people with eggs are not necessarily the top Christian response to these types of problems, it's easy to understand why these demonstrators would be upset. The French government is becoming increasingly hostile towards the Christian community. If the French government has its way, it will imprison Christians who question the moral validity of homosexuality. The French government had in 2004 pushed for a law outlawing any remarks considered offensive to homosexuals. The Independent reported, "France to punish homophobic and sexist remarks with jail sentences"[5] and outlined how the vote failed to pass by a slim margin.

In response to the French Christian protests, Romeo Castellucci stated, "I forgive them for they know not what they do … I forgive them because they are ignorant and their ignorance is much more arrogant and damaging because it involves faith."[6] While Castellucci may feel magnanimous about his forgiving spirit, organizations in Belgium and France are urging people to sign a petition to stop the play.[7]

While causing children to bombard Christ's image may seem harmless to Castellucci and others, Jesus touched on this type of subject and the evil nature of causing children to lose faith in God and to despise Christianity. Ultimately God will judge Castellucci, and he apparently won't judge him lightly:

"And if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to be thrown into the sea with a large millstone tied around his neck."(Mark 9.4, NIV)

The article, Proof Moral Relativism is False, highlights why moral relativism is illogical and tends to create an increasingly totalitarian society. There are two spirits, the spirit of truth and the spirit of antichrist, as shown in 1 John 4:2-6. Which spirit do you follow and serve? For those of us who are Christians, we can pray for the salvation of artists like Romeo Castellucci and for the protection of the children he is attempting to indoctrinate with his art.

37 comments:

Sorry, Rick, but I am not letting you off the hook no matter how many new articles you post.

R:While there was indirect death through starvation in both cases, the British did not enact public hangings and shootings of innocent civilians for show, as far as I understand the situation.

1)From the citation you provided there is no evidence whatsoever that the Italians did public hanging and the shooting of civilians. The civilians were killed indirectly like in South Africa. It was a typical way of fighting guerillas and I can provide other examples.

Yes, the guerillas were executed through shooting and public hanging to inspire fear. So how is that worse from the British tactics to induce terror through chemical weapons and bombing of civilians or the execution of POWs?

http://angloboer.com/crimes.htm

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/apr/19/iraq.arts

2) As always, you are ignoring my question.

Do you still consider Italian Fascism, with no racial laws until 1938 and no enforcement of them until the occupation by Germany, to be antisemitic?

A: "From the citation you provided there is no evidence whatsoever that the Italians did public hanging and the shooting of civilians."

I've posted this text several times for you with a link. I realize you are Russian and not a native speaker of English, so maybe you need to look up each word in a dictionary or have a tutor help you understand exactly what it says.

"No respect of human laws: Grasiani agreed to go to Libya if and only if Mosolini let him do the job without any consideration or respect for rules and laws in Italy or in the World and Mosolini agreed immediately. He planned his murderous attack on the Libyans, all Libyans according to Mosoliny's Motto "If you are not with me, you are against me!" which means the only way to control the country is by killing almost half of its population and the Italians did cause the death of half of Libya's men, women, elderly and childern, directly through public hangings and shootings and indirectly (hunger, illness and horror) for the sake of one thing: showing the world that they have the power to invade and capture colonies just like the other powers in the world." (October 26, 2011 9:01 PM)

http://www.freewebs.com/islamic-site/warrior/omar.html

I draw your attention specifically to these words:

"...the Italians did cause the death of half of Libya's men, women, elderly and childern, directly through public hangings and shootings and indirectly."

Your statement is therefore wrong:

"From the citation you provided there is no evidence whatsoever that the Italians did public hanging and the shooting of civilians."

If you want to be a trouble maker and just waste time, I'll just ignore you again.

R:"...the Italians did cause the death of half of Libya's men, women, elderly and childern, directly through public hangings and shootings and indirectly."

It seems to me, you do have some reading problems and I do not mean it as an insult. The above quotation bundles up together combatant and civilian casualties. It is impossible to determine from the quote if the people hanged and shot were civilians or caught guerillas.

R:If you want to be a trouble maker and just waste time, I'll just ignore you again.

You will just prove my point about being a hypocrite, claiming to fight for truth, while running away from it in reality. So far you have been proven at least twice wrong while you initially dismissed my arguments as trolling.

Third time the charm? Are you going to answer my question or not? Do you still consider Italian Fascism, with no racial laws until 1938 and no enforcement of them until the occupation by Germany, to be antisemitic?

A: So far you have been proven at least twice wrong while you initially dismissed my arguments as trolling.

R: You seem to have a real tit-for-tat mentality. On the one point, I simply wrote I could have been more clear in defining Nazism and Fascism, it wasn't a case of being wrong. On the second point I did admit I made a mistake in saying Jews were deported from Italy before 1938 and you asked me to apologize, which I thought was a bit odd, because I had admitted I had made a mistake:

"P.S. And learn to apologize for the clearly false facts your provide in your posts. Refusing to do so does not provide you any extra credibility, but it speaks volume about your character in a not very flattering way.- October 28, 2011 11:27 AM "

I apologized to you as you requested, but it's interesting, when you make mistakes you don't apologize to me:

"Yes, I did a mistake and a law was adopted in 1938 to strengthen ties with Berlin. But it just proves that the German influence was that high." October 26, 2011 7:58 AM

So show me, Anonymous, when did you make your apology for your mistake? As you wrote, "it speaks volume about your character in a not very flattering way"

As far as your other question is concerned, I've already shown evidence that Mussolini claimed to be a racist and desired the extermination of Jews. I showed evidence that the Italian military willingly volunteered to send Jews to extermination camps and I've shown evidence that Jews in recent history have been concerned for their safety because they believe the people in power in Italy are still anti-Semitic and have not changed since WWII.

Now, help me to fully understand your position. Do you really believe that the massacre of Libyans, i.e., men, women and children, by Italian Fascists was not genocide? Do you really believe that it is no different than the scorched earth policies of the British in the Boer War, and these were both normal acts of war at that time and that the Nazism of Hitler was completely different because it was racist against the Jews? Please clarify exactly what you believe.

Bad luck Rick, I live in France, I've been closely following the Castellucci controversy, and so I can firsthand point all the errors, misleading hints, and lies you are giving us here. Among them :- no "fecal-like substances" are hurled at an image of Jesus in the play,- the last words of the play are “You are my shepherd” as the "not" progressively disappears,- Castellucci said about the protesters "I forgive them" because they did not see the piece nor even read anything about its real content,- the show does not promote Christophobia and hatred against Christians, all the contrary, as Castellucci is a Christian, and those Christians who were honest enough to see the show before talking about it describe it as "getting them closer to the mystery of the relationship of Christ to mankind".

In a nutshell, the show is about the enduring love of a son for his father, as the father gets older, sicker, to the point where he becomes incontinent. It is a reflection about love in the face of physical decline, about the harshness of the human condition, all under the eyes of a giant Christ portrait who silently questions the spectator.

The controversy has been sparked by right-wing catholic conservatives, for whom the sole idea of having "fecal matter" and "christ face" together on stage is enough to send them barking like mad dogs. Still another illustration of "faith" reducing believers to thoughtless robots, killing their capacity to think and to refer to facts before ideology.

Some useful links from the real sources:Castelluci interview explaining his play:http://www.festival-avignon.com/lib_php/download.php?fileID=553&type=File&round=162912328

Reaction of some honest catholics (including a priest) who actually saw the show:"I have not seen blasphemy. It calls for a true reflection on the suffering, the compassion of this son for this old man. Compassion of the Son for our old and soiled humanity." http://www.leforumcatholique.org/message.php?num=613077

R: You seem to have a real tit-for-tat mentality. On the one point, I simply wrote I could have been more clear in defining Nazism and Fascism, it wasn't a case of being wrong.

That is not what I am talking about, I am talking about how you were proven wrong about dismissing initially my arguments as trolling

R:So show me, Anonymous, when did you make your apology for your mistake?

I am a human being and I do make mistakes. And I did apologize before in this blog. And I can do it again. Sorry, I did a mistake.

R:I've already shown evidence that Mussolini claimed to be a racist and desired the extermination of Jews. I showed evidence that the Italian military willingly volunteered to send Jews to extermination camps and I've shown evidence that Jews in recent history have been concerned for their safety because they believe the people in power in Italy are still anti-Semitic and have not changed since WWII.

Instead of addressing the criticism of your arguments you just repeat them, turning them into some sort of holy cow.

1)The diaries you presented are biased and are your single source, which contradicts logic and all the other evidence. Mussolini could have at best been trying to justify his sudden change of course in front of his mistress. But your argument still fails.

2)Collaborationism phenomena is normal under any occupation. It existed in every country, including democracies. Hence, it fails.

3)The fears of the Jews in your article are largely exaggerated. It is mostly political propaganda, playing with ignorance. Therefore this argument also fails.

4)Finally, you have nothing to counter the fact that no antisemitic rhetoric was used prior to 1936, when Rome allied itself to Berlin. And you still cannot counter the fact that the Jews were not oppressed before the German occupation.

R:Do you really believe that it is no different than the scorched earth policies of the British in the Boer War, and these were both normal acts of war at that time and that the Nazism of Hitler was completely different because it was racist against the Jews?

I do not believe that any kind of war can be good. War is always inhuman, no matter the rules. The only question would be to what degree. The Brits were no better than the Italians in the presented case.

The main difference between Nazis and others would be that they would incorporate racism and genocide into their core system. Be it peace or war, they would still have conducted their plans. Not only against Jews, but also against other "unworthy" nations. The Brits or Italians only used inhuman methods as an instrument for the "greater good", their victory.

- no "fecal-like substances" are hurled at an image of Jesus in the play,

Yes, you are right that the actual plastic grenades (whatever they are) hurled at the image themselves are not fecal, but the oozing fecal imagery just after the children hurl their projectiles has its implications, in addition to the fecal smell that fills the room, as Smits described it.

In my opinion, the government's attitude reflects a double standard. They've wanted to make it a hate crime to simply say something negative about one group, homosexuals, but they defend the right to publicly stage actions that are extremely offensive to another group, Christians.

If the children were hurling objects at images of well-known gays, including the mayor of Paris, and fecal-like substances were dripping down his face, I highly doubt this would be permitted.

This Antichrist discrimination has been growing around the world, protecting one group, homosexuals, and attacking the rights of the other, Christians.

Sweden, 2004

Swedish Pastor Sentenced to Month in Prison for Preaching Against Homosexuality,

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive/ldn/2004/jul/04070505

Canada, 2007

Decision: "I find that there is a circumstantial connection between the hate speech of Mr. Boissoin and the CCC and the beating of a gay teenager in Red Deer less than two weeks following the publication of Mr. Boissoin's letter," wrote panel chairwoman Lori Andreachuk." (November 30, 2007, despite the fact that he had never advocated violence of any sort in his letter or otherwise.)Pastor, Christian coalition violated human rights law, Alberta panel rules

UK Pastor Arrested Over Comments on Homosexuality,Dale McAlpine, a pastor in the United Kingdom, has been arrested after saying homosexuality is a sin. “I’m stunned,” McAlpine said. “I’m just an ordinary, law-abiding Christian who wants to share his faith with the public.”

Rick, I did my best to have a discussion with you, but you just refuse to have a decent debate. You keep insisting on your position, repeating the same refuted arguments over and over like some sort of mantra and ignoring your opponent. I can put up with your reading disabilities and false logic, but I cannot accept your childish behavior and your arrogance. Have a nice day.

R: Who is talking about a mere idea? That's a sad and false presumption.

History shows Jesus was a person, not only described in scriptural texts. Pontius Pilate described him in his writings:

Later, I wrote to Jesus requesting an interview with Him at the Praetorium. He came. When the Nazarene made His appearance I was having my morning walk and as I faced Him my feet seemed fastened with an iron hand to the marble pavement and I trembled in every limb as a guilty culprit, though he was calm. For some time I stood admiring this extraordinary Man. There was nothing in Him that was repelling, nor in His character, yet I felt awed in His presence. I told Him that there was a magnetic simplicity about Him and His personality that elevated Him far above the philosophers and teachers of His day.

http://www.thenazareneway.com/likeness_of_our_saviour.htm

And the description of Publius Lentullus:

"There appeared in these our days a man, of the Jewish Nation, of great virtue, named Yeshua [Jesus], who is yet living among us, and of the Gentiles is accepted for a Prophet of truth, but His own disciples call Him the Son of God- He raiseth the dead and cureth all manner of disease

http://www.thenazareneway.com/likeness_of_our_saviour.htm

Notice they both call Jesus a "man" a living, breathing man, in addition to describing his characteristics.

So, if Jesus was a real person, not just an "idea" why then does his memory not deserve some basic respect?

If I found an old photo of your great grand father and made a huge image of it and then began throwing things at it on stage and I said, "Now don't be offended anyone, what I am doing is art, don't be an ignorant fool, can't you see we are in a theatre and this is a stage?"

Simply calling something art doesn't make anything you want to do acceptable, no matter who you offend. That is the epitome of arrogance.

It is right that historians tend to think that Jesus really existed, mainly because there is an allusion to him in the writings of his contemporary Roman historian Flavius Josephus. That's all. All other historical references were written much later and document the beliefs of Christians, not the existence of a real person Jesus.So your "quote" from Pontius Pilate is an hilarious forgery, even lacking the most basic credibility. As for "Publius Lentulus", he himself is fictional.

I think you're honest, so it's just that there is no limit to your credulity. That's sad. Another consequence of faith.

As I said, the law protects people (like my great grand father), not Gods (like Jesus pretended to be). Gods are supposed to be able to protect themselves all right.

And lastly, if you really believe in your faith, don't you think the worst blasphemy is all the killings that have been made, and are made, in the name of Jesus, who himself preached love and forgiveness ? Isn't that the real offense to His memory ?

Y: It is right that historians tend to think that Jesus really existed, mainly because there is an allusion to him in the writings of his contemporary Roman historian Flavius Josephus.

R: Yes, I forgot about Flavius Josephus. People generally consider him reliable. So why is Jesus' existence supposedly unreliable in his case?

Do you beleive Pontius Pilat's writings are a forgery as well?

I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the epistles and gospels as reflecting historical people and events.

"Comparing the New Testament text with the other known ancient documents, it's easy to see there is nothing close to the NT, in terms of proximity and the number of copied manuscripts. When you include the Syriac, Latin, Coptic, and Aramaic languages, in addition to the Greek, the number of manuscripts skyrockets to over 24,000. The internal consistency of the New Testament is determined to be about 99.5% textually pure...

R: I believe the laws are mostly intended to protect the rights of living people from defamation and slander.

Forget living and dead people for a minute. Consider art in general.

If I were to make a huge painting with a Bible verse stating Homosexuality is a sin and have an art opening, I could be threatened with a lawsuit and the lawsuit would likely be upheld be a hate crimes supporting judge or tribunal, such as they have in Canada. But if someone makes anti-Christain art, there's very little likelihood of a judgement being made in a Christian's favor. This is simply the way society is now, very anti-Christian.

Art is merely a reflection of the society is emerges from. And the laws of the land are increasingly anti_Christian. What we have today is a culture war in which new rights issues are being forced upon people in order to try and force people to change their deepest values, which they believe is progress.

This article seems to describe the situation:

"...tolerance is "the disposition to adopt a liberal attitude towards the opinions or acts of others, especially those of other religions or ethnic backgrounds." One would think that tolerance would mean that social liberals would be tolerant about our religious beliefs. In the Newspeak of today, however, tolerance means everyone is obliged to take a liberal attitude towards immoral sexual behaviour, but those who practice that immoral behaviour do not have to tolerate Christian beliefs which oppose such behaviour."

If Christians say publicly that they disapprove of homosexual behaviour because the Bible declares it to be immoral, then that is "promoting hatred". If they quote medical statistics about the HIV infection rates of homosexual men, that is "promoting hatred". If they object to their children being indoctrinated in kindergarten class with information about homosexuality, they are hateful people.

http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/persecution/pch0080.html

But if a Christian complains about art or actions that they believe are Christophobic and offense, not only is there no respect, there is aggression and possibly legal retribution.

Y: I think you're honest, so it's just that there is no limit to your credulity. That's sad.

R: I think it's sad that people can be so blind. A Christian apologist, William Lane Craig, has defeated three of the main apologists for Atheism in the world, and the main one, Richard Dawkins, is afraid to debate him. Yet, amazingly, atheists will still to Christians say:

"It's just that there is no limit to your credulity."

Craig wins by presenting about 5 examples of evidence showing God's existence. Atheist's say, "It's too much information." Well, if there was evidence supporting Atheism it could be used, right? Right. But atheist's cannot contend with Christian arguments for God's existence because the arguments are just better.

So who is really the sad one, Yogi? My truth doesn't depend on a consensus of gestalt postmodern artists or pretentious science/philosophers like Richard Dawkins, but your opinion seems to be based on these types of things. What else do you have to base it on?

Conformed to the fashionable and losing logic of the world has made you quite numb in your philosophical sensibility. Because you are in a state of spiritual blindness, you are blind in other areas of life but the last person to understand what blindness really is, is a blind person. If you doubt me, ask a physically blind person to compare seeing with blindness. The lack of a logical foundation of Atheism is a dead give away and is a testimony crying out loudly enough for any blind person who desires to hear it.

R: "Yes, I forgot about Flavius Josephus. People generally consider him reliable. So why is Jesus' existence supposedly unreliable in his case?"

Because it has been proven that some parts of the "Testimonium flavianum", where Josephus writes about Jesus, have been tampered with by later Christian copyists. How much of it exactly remains authentic is then unsure, but historians tend to believe that Josephus did indeed mention Jesus.

R: "Do you beleive Pontius Pilat's writings are a forgery as well?"

Pilate did not leave any writing, and I just can't believe you thought that quote you gave could be authentic. It's an utterly ridiculous forgery. Track your sources.

R: "If I were to make a huge painting with a Bible verse stating Homosexuality is a sin and have an art opening, I could be threatened with a lawsuit"

I don't know about the law in Canada, but I doubt that expressing an opinion, such as "homosexuality is bad" could have you condemned in court. Attacking people, such as "homosexuals are perverts", is of course another matter. In much the same way, it should be allowed to say "Christianity is a piece of crap and Jesus lied", even though saying "Christians are morons" would be another matter.

Craig's arguments do not hold water a second. They just exemplify his inability to get "the big picture", and his lack of logical abilities, as has been shown in numerous books, conferences or web sites.

But I won't argue because reading your discussions here for awhile has shown me that no matter the amount of evidence exhibited, no matter the detailed logical reasoning explained, not one word gets to your brain. You've been mentally mummified by your faith. But I keep hope, because you are exactly in the position of people claiming the earth is flat : it will take some time and a few generations, but your beliefs will disappear. Each progress of knowledge, each progress of thought, every day, takes another bite off your belief system.

And even if you or your islamic brothers win, bringing the end of science, logic, knowledge, and the collapse of civilization as we know it, I do believe mankind would recover after a few millenia. As long as Man will have an urge to seek truth, religions are doomed.

Y: How much of it exactly remains authentic is then unsure, but historians tend to believe that Josephus did indeed mention Jesus.

R: I've found a site with a detailed examination of this subject and the conclusion is as you say, A majority accept the Testimonium Flavianum, which includes descriptions of Jesus Christ, to be mainly authentic with slight changes.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/testimonium.html

I find it somewhat incredible that you doubt Jesus existed as a person, Yogi.

Even atheist's find that view a bit ridiculous today. I tend to agree with this atheist's view:

"I'm not a believer, but seriously. There's more than enough concrete, and, biased-against-Jesus, evidence no more than 70 years after his death as to the fact that the MAN existed. There's no doubt about it. Roman historians wrote about him by NAME, that he existed, that he caused trouble, and that the emperor hated him and punished him. You think credible Roman figures of that time are going to make things up just after it happened? As if they can fool anyone that soon after the fact... The historians also didn't write on their own account, but accessed records of their time detailing the transcripts and activities of the events (i.e. something towards a modern library and/or city hall). Not to mention there was probably a few people surviving who lived it first hand and at minimum were children of those survivors, Romans, Jews, and future Christians alike.

If that's not evidence enough that the man actually existed then NO ONE in the old and new testament existed (Moses, Solomon, etc), and neither did Buddha, and Mohammed, and etc."

Y: Craig's arguments do not hold water a second. They just exemplify his inability to get "the big picture"

R: That's very humorous. His arguments "don't hold water" in the big picture and yet he's defeated all the top atheists of our day in debate. If that means his arguments don't hold water, then I guess that doesn't say very much for Atheism, does it :)

Y: his lack of logical abilities, as has been shown in numerous books, conferences or web sites.

R: Compared to what? Atheism? Again, very funny. The "Four Horsemen" leading the charge of Atheism have either been "spanked" like a "foolish child" according to Luke Muehlhauser of Common Sense Atheism (http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=1230) or, in the case of Dawkins, run away like a frightened prep school freshman on hazing day at prep school.

Y: But I won't argue because reading your discussions here for awhile has shown me that no matter the amount of evidence exhibited, no matter the detailed logical reasoning explained, not one word gets to your brain.

R: Your "evidence exhibited" as far as I can tell, consists of one main argument, that you cannot reconcile how a God who knows the outcome of the future can also offer people free will. And my answer, over and over, has been that knowing the outcome of the future does not necessarily mean God must control everyone like robots. The compatibilist view addresses this, but you haven't pointed specifically why it doesn't work. Just saying "It doesn't work" isn't a logical rebuttal.

Y: You've been mentally mummified by your faith.

R: Say what you like. Your fleeing Horsemen seem to be telling a different tale of reality.

Y: it will take some time and a few generations, but your beliefs will disappear.

RL: Recent history has been a bit of a surprise for atheists because, while Christianity is declining somewhat in once strong Christian locations, such as Europe and America, it is growing stronger by the minute in China and other Asian countries, in India, in Africa and in many parts of South America. The first chapter of D'Souza's book, "What's so Great About Christianity" offers a detailed account of this.

This is not to say that militant Atheists won't commit a massive genocide of Christians. We've seen this many times in history and Jesus prophesied this would happen in the last days, in Matthew 24.9

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+24&version=NIV

It's not about reason and logic for militant atheists, Yogi. You don't seem to be able to put two and two together. Once your four horseman have been beaten and bruised enough in debate, it's just a matter of time until brute force is used against Christians. That's the direction we're headed in.

Nevertheless, even when pagan Rome went full on against the Christians, even when ten pagan emperors of Rome attempted to wipe out Christianity, the opposite happened, Christianity grew and spread:

Y: Each progress of knowledge, each progress of thought, every day, takes another bite off your belief system.

R: If this is true, why are all your atheist defenders unable to share this great wisdom and knowledge convincingly? :)

Y: As long as Man will have an urge to seek truth, religions are doomed.

R: Again, you are very humorous. People seeking truth are interested in a Socratic dialogue. Handing out sheets of propaganda at the Sheldonian theatre is not a very convincing demonstration of truth. Only in a live debate can a person challenge ideas, presuppositions and logical syntax. Anyone can sit behind his desk and write abusive, militant articles. People who would rather hold onto sacred cows and false preconceptions aren't interested in debate or in truth, Yogi.

R: "The "Four Horsemen" leading the charge of Atheism have either been "spanked" like a "foolish child" according to Luke Muehlhauser ..."

Muehlhauser criticizes the "live performance" of Hitchens, not the fact that Craig's arguments are nonsense.

R: "Your "evidence exhibited" as far as I can tell, consists of one main argument, that ..."

It's not just my arguments, it's all the flow of discussion with Havok and Anonymous. For everything regarding faith, you've lost your listening and reasoning abilities.

R: "even when ten pagan emperors of Rome attempted to wipe out Christianity, the opposite happened, Christianity grew and spread"

Guess how it grew and spread ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Pagans_by_the_Christian_Roman_Empire

R: "Only in a live debate can a person challenge ideas, presuppositions and logical syntax."

No, not "only". Studying, careful reasoning, analysis are also required. Live debate can be biaised by a poor performance, as apparently happened to the Craig/Hitchens debate. That one debate does not change the fact that any careful and logical mind reading Craig's arguments will see them as erroneous.

R: "[Y : Each progress of knowledge, each progress of thought, every day, takes another bite off your belief system] // If this is true, why are all your atheist defenders unable to share this great wisdom and knowledge convincingly?"

They are, as is evidenced by the fact that the more knowledgeable you are, the more agnostic or atheist you get, up to 90% of "greater scientists". http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html

Y: Muehlhauser criticizes the "live performance" of Hitchens, not the fact that Craig's arguments are nonsense.

Muehlhauser does criticize the performance and appearance of Hitchins, that's true. But nowhere does Muehlhauser imply that Craig's arguments are "nonsense" as you wrote. On the contrary, this is what Muehlhauser wrote,

"Hitchens realized how bad things were for him after Craig’s opening speech, as even Hitchens’ rhetorical flourishes were not as confident as usual. Hitchens wasted his cross-examination time with questions like, “If a baby was born in Palestine, would you rather it be a Muslim baby or an atheist baby?”

And in conclusion Muehlhauser wrote, "I have little to say about the points of the debate itself because Craig gave the same case he always gives, and Hitchens never managed to put up a coherent rebuttal or argument."

Yes, Hitchins was not polished, but Muehlhauser pointed out that Hitchens had points as well, just weak ones, “If a baby was born in Palestine, would you rather it be a Muslim baby or an atheist baby?” The problem for atheism is a lack of good arguments. That would be a beginning. The polish of the performance is secondary.

Y: It's not just my arguments, it's all the flow of discussion with Havok and Anonymous (that are supposedly "evidence exhibited" against Christianity). For everything regarding faith, you've lost your listening and reasoning abilities.

R: Well, let's consider the last argument by Havok before disappeared. Havok offered helpful criticism when I first offered this proof, and I adjusted it somewhat, to what it is now:

P1. Moral relativists claim that there are no absolute moral standards.P2. The claim "All moral standards are relative" proposes an absolute moral standard.P3. To propose there are no absolute moral standards using an absolute moral standard is illogical.C. Therefore, the relativist's claim "All moral standards are relative" is illogical.

Later, Havok claimed that this argument doesn't work because he believes the first premise is tentative.

"It's not an absolute claim but a tentative one. This syllogism, like all your others, seems to fail." (Proof Moral Relativism is False-October 22, 2011 8:43 PM)

But it's not tentative, this is the generally accepted definition of moral relativism.

This was my answer to Havok,

Think it through: A moral relativist is, by definition, someone committed to the moral ideology, the moral stat of affairs, (as obviously erroneous as it might seem) that all morality is relative, all the time. Yes, that is a paradox and it is non-sensical, but don't blame me because I don't believe it for a second. :)

A "moral relativist" is not by definition someone who is tentative, unsure and uncommitted regarding the question of whether o not all morality is relative, i.e., "Maybe some morality is relative and some is not...I'm not sure."

The Stanford Encyclopedia summarizes the most common conception of moral relativism: "Most often it is associated with an empirical thesis that… the truth or justification of moral judgments is not absolute,"

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-relativism/

Richard Dawkins admitted in so many words he is a moral relativist by implying there is no universal and objective basis for determining the moral "ought" and "should" questions of life.

According to the Stanford EoP, an comments by people life Richard Dawkins, my premise seems pretty solid: "Moral relativists claim that there are no absolute moral standards."

So where is your "evidence exhibited" in Havok? As for Anonymous, I'm not sure what you could have in mind as an argument against God's existence or my points. Can you point out a specific example (date and location of comment please) of where Anonymous presented a strong argument for Atheism?

Y: That one debate does not change the fact that any careful and logical mind reading Craig's arguments will see them as erroneous.

R: If there are indeed strong arguments against Craig, why haven't they worked for the "Three Horsemen" of Atheism who have each had opportunities to debate Craig so far? Atheists have said what you have said, that Dennett and Harris have strong arguments. But if these so-called "strong arguments" were so strong, they would have some kind of effect in a debate.

Anyone can write an article or book and make a case that seems strong. But, as Socrates pointed out in the Socratic method, asking questions aloes for an object critique of any argument. When people like Dawkins insulate their work from live questioning, this is a true sign of weakness.

Y: They are, as is evidenced by the fact that the more knowledgeable you are, the more agnostic or atheist you get, up to 90% of "greater scientists". http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html As knowledge progresses, religion regresses. Choose your side.

R: I looked at your "greater scientists" article and it doesn't really have much behind it. Wasn't it you who recently wrote, "Track your sources." :-)

1. Who is the panel doing this research? Is it balanced and objective with both theists and atheists? That's not mentioned and so it is likely that it's a biased secular panel. If a balanced panel found this to be true, then it would be interesting. In contrast, the Gallup polls are secular polls that frequently find positive statistics about believers showing that believers tend to be the happiest, healthiest people in society and the least prone to suicide.

2. Also, who were the specific scientists examined? How were they chosen? What does "greater" mean as a scientist? The basis of the article is highly subjective and speculative, which is quite ironic considering the subject is objective science. An atheist critic may not ever be able to consider Newton truly "great" precisely because Newton believed in God.

In our day, scientists who believes in Intelligent Design are immediately written off as "quak scientists" though they have peer reviewed scientific articles. For example, Michael Behe is a peer-reviwed biologists but militant atheists like Dawkins refuse to debate him because Behe proposes intelligent design. There are many scientists like him who are afraid to actually admit they believe in God because they would likely be fired, as the documentary, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed documents.

Cosmologist Alan Sandage was highly acclaimed in the world when he was an atheist. He won the National Medal of Science (1970) the Bruce Medal (1975) Peter Gruber Cosmology Prize, the Tomalla Prize from the Swiss Physical Society, the Crafoord Prize from the Swedish Academy of Sciences, and gold medals from the Royal Astronomical Society, the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, and the Pontifical Academy of Sciences. He has also received the Russell Prize from the American Astronomical Society, the Presidential National Medal of Science, and the Eddington Medal from the Royal Astronomical Society.

http://www.counterbalance.org/bio/sanda-frame.html

Sandage said of his belief:

"I could not live a life full of cynicism. I chose to believe, and a peace of mind came over me."

Despite all his awards, when Sandage became a Christian he was vilified by the academic community. Under these circumstances, where atheist hegemony controls academia, such a poll on "great scientists" is a bit ridiculous. As atheist hegemony progresses, truth regresses. Choose your side.

I don't think so, in the same way as many objects moving relatively to each other do not require to have a unique central reference. But I will not get into the morals debate since basic moral principles of justice and reciprocity, present in all human societies and exhibited by toddlers, are also found in primates and other upper mammals. They are a key survival factor for members of cooperative groups, and so provide a "natural basis" to human morality (which, by the way, could hardly be inspired by God since He Himself does not comply to it).

R: "If there are indeed strong arguments against Craig, why haven't they worked ..."

In short, arguments 1 to 4 are either (and sometimes simultaneously) weak arguments in favor of God - as many other explanations can be proposed - or strong arguments in defavor of God - as these same questions get unsolvable if you ask them after having added God into the equation - and argument 5 is both meaningless and flawed in its generalization principle.Taking these arguments seriously is just like believing in the Pilate quote earlier: it just shows an absolute lack of reflection and research, and a desperate will to believe whatever the cost to reason. At this stage, I can't be of any help.

R: "who were the specific scientists examined? How were they chosen? What does "greater" mean as a scientist?"

These are very interesting remarks, as the answers to all these questions are clearly given in this rather short article. It shows that either you did not read it and directly rejected its conclusions that you could not bear, or, more probably, that you read it but your mental barriers kept the information from getting into your brain. In either case, it shows how vain a discussion is with you on faith matters.

R: "Sandage said of his belief: "I could not live a life full of cynicism. I chose to believe, and a peace of mind came over me.""

This is a very significant and representative quote. Believers don't care about truth. They "choose to believe" because it makes them feel good. I think this approach is a dead-end, that can't hold very long in the face of growing knowledge. Knowledge or belief, you've got to choose.

Y: I don't think so, in the same way as many objects moving relatively to each other do not require to have a unique central reference.

R: Moving objects are only considered moving with respect to a reference point. If 10 objects are moving at the same speed, relatively speaking, according to your logic they wouldn't actually be moving, they would all be stationary, because there would be no referent for movement. Morality is the same. People may say that morality is relative but all people act as if there is an objective reference point. Dawkins and his moral outrage over Canaan is an example.

R: "If there are indeed strong arguments against Craig, why haven't they worked ..."

Y: In short, arguments 1 to 4 are either (and sometimes simultaneously) weak arguments in favor of God

R: That's an interesting opinion. Because when atheists try and critique them in live debate, they lose.

R: "who were the specific scientists examined? How were they chosen? What does "greater" mean as a scientist?"

Y: These are very interesting remarks, as the answers to all these questions are clearly given in this rather short article.

R: Oh really? Let's see...

1. Yogi, please show me where in the article it speicifically defines the people on the review panel and their specific beliefs.

2. Please show where in the article specifically what a "great" scintists is defined as: "Leuba mailed his brief questionnaire to a random sample of 400 AMS "great scientists."

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html#394313A0r001

Here's an apparent example of an arbitrary quality of a "greater" scientist:

"Our chosen group of "greater" scientists were members of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS)." (http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html)

Let's examine what the NAS (the group of great scientists) believes:

"Creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science."

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=6024&page=25

This is a non-objective and false assessment of Intelligent Design. Therefore the entire survey is discredited. Intelligent design is testable, for example in this explanation:

"Dr. McPeek's article goes wrong where he says: "The Intelligent Design hypothesis is untestable by science, exactly because we can never empirically know or understand the actions of God or any other Intelligent Designer." Let's take God out of the equation here so Dr. McPeek's statement now says: "The Intelligent Design hypothesis is untestable by science, exactly because we can never empirically know or understand the actions of ... any ... Intelligent Designer." That statement is incorrect.

It's quite a simple exercise to know and understand the actions of humans, who happen to be intelligent designers."

A qualification for scientific analysis is falsifiability. Is intelligent design falsifiable? Is Darwinism falsifiable? Yes to the first question, no to the second. http://www.arn.org/docs/dembski/wd_isidtestable.htm

R: "Sandage said of his belief: "I could not live a life full of cynicism. I chose to believe, and a peace of mind came over me.""

Y: This is a very significant and representative quote. Believers don't care about truth. They "choose to believe" because it makes them feel good.

R: actually, Sandage had "cynicism" about the nature of reality due to the preconceptions of the naturalist view.

"I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing."

Willford, J.N. March 12, 1991. Sizing up the Cosmos: An Astronomers Quest. New York Times, p. B9.

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/quotes.html#n05

His view was not based on feelings but on evidence:

At the age of 50, Sandage became a Christian. In Alan Lightman's book, Origins: The Lives and Worlds of Modern Cosmologists, Sandage states "The nature of God is not to be found within any part of the findings of science. For that, one must turn to the Scriptures." When asked the famous question regarding whether it is possible to be a scientist and a Christian, Sandage replied, "Yes. The world is too complicated in all its parts and interconnections to be due to chance alone. I am convinced that the existence of life with all its order in each of its organisms is simply too well put together."

http://www.leaderu.com/offices/schaefer/docs/bigbang.html

The desire for top, "great" or otherwise infamous atheists to flee from debate is a sign that atheist hegemony is a case of the emperor with no clothes. It's easy to sit and write books to a believing and devoted crowd of disciples without having your ideas tested.

Knowledge or belief, you've got to choose.

By the way, you didn't answer my questions about Havok and Anonymous. Please show where there is "evidence exhibited" in their arguments for Atheism. What are the dates posted for their best arguments.

R: "please show me where in the article it specifically defines the people on the review panel and their specific beliefs."

This information is not given in the article, that's why I did not mention it as an information you should have been able to gather. But I think that sending to a predefined list of people a predefined (since 1914) list of Yes/No questions, collecting and counting the results, does not leave much room to "interpretative bias" or the influence of the reviewers' beliefs.

R: "Please show where in the article specifically what a "great" scientists is defined"

Right there: "In Leuba's day, AMS editors designated the "great scientists" among their entries, and Leuba used these to identify his "greater" scientists."Clearly these "great scientists" were so designated in the light of their scientific accomplishments, and not with any religious polling selection in mind. Isn't it telling that even after careful reading you're not able to make sense out of a basic (opposing) text?

R: "This is a non-objective and false assessment of Intelligent Design. Therefore the entire survey is discredited."

I'm afraid you are discredited by claiming that you know better than the top 500 scientists in America what a valid scientific approach is.

R: "Intelligent design is testable, for example in this explanation..."

The paper you linked is a caricature of post-hoc rationalization and circular reasoning, useless for any scientific purpose. Incidentally, one may think that if evolution was directed and "designed" by an intelligent creator, we would not see the many illnesses, impairments and defects present in the physiology of the human being.

R: "A qualification for scientific analysis is falsifiability. Is intelligent design falsifiable? Is Darwinism falsifiable? Yes to the first question, no to the second."

You linked an interesting paper there. If you read it carefully you'll see that on each "scientificity" criteria given by Dembski, he provides for ID either an erroneous, autoreferent argument (such as "complexity proves intelligence", whereas this is the very core of the question to be proven, or "intelligence is auto explanatory"), or he provides a reason why ID should evade it (such as "intelligent creativity is unpredictable"). It is, in other words, a self-blowing piece of nonsense which all the more highlights how much ID belongs to religion and not to science, to belief and not to knowledge.

R: "actually, Sandage had "cynicism" about the nature of reality due to the preconceptions of the naturalist view."

The correct term would be "neutrality". It is the taste of reality. Giving it a qualifying name only illustrates Sandage bias.

R: "His view was not based on feelings but on evidence"

The examples given are based on personal interpretation, not on evidence. You don't seem to see the difference.

R: "By the way, you didn't answer my questions about Havok and Anonymous"

Where do we see logical reasoning exposed to you, that you don't seem able to grasp? Just about anywhere. For example according to me it was the case when I looked at the debate "A Moral Argument as Proof of God’s Existence", all along the dozens of messages prior to October 8, 2011 2:12 AM.

R: "It's easy to sit and write books to a believing and devoted crowd of disciples without having your ideas tested."

I fully agree, and this is a pretty good description of religion and the Scriptures.

****This exchange has been very instructive to me about the arguments put forward by believers and ID proponents, yourself or flagships such as Craig and Dembski. In my opinion they ranged all the way from plain factual errors to reasoning flaws to off-the-wall ravings.

But there is only so much time I can spend reading such literature and arguing around it, especially as, in my view, you have gotten impervious to reason thus making any discussion progress impossible.I'm not sure I'll pursue very much around here.

R: "please show me where in the article it specifically defines the people on the review panel and their specific beliefs."

Y: This information is not given in the article, that's why I did not mention it as information you should have been able to gather.

R: It seems there is a bit more critical information missing from your survey and comments as well. You still have not pointed out what specifically constitutes a “great” scientist, according to your great survey. Yet you wrote this:

“These are very interesting remarks, as the answers to all these questions are clearly given in this rather short article.”

And then you wrote this,

“Clearly these "great scientists" were so designated in the light of their scientific accomplishments, and not with any religious polling selection in mind.”

No, it’s not “clear” at all. Clear is when facts are outlined. This is apparently the text that identifies the criteria of how your “great” scientists were selected:

"In Leuba's day, AMS editors designated the "great scientists" among their entries, and Leuba used these to identify his "greater" scientists."

More specifically, “AMS editors designated the "great scientists" so they were designated as great scientists by a biased AMS organization and that makes them great.

Then you wrote this, “Isn't it telling that even after careful reading you're not able to make sense out of a basic (opposing) text?”

It seems it is you who can’t read text objectively or honestly. Simply having a biased organization “designating” scientists they decide as “great,” for no specific mentioned reason, does not make for a very scientific poll, sorry. A junior high school science student knows better than this.

R: "This is a non-objective and false assessment of Intelligent Design. Therefore the entire survey is discredited."

Y: I'm afraid you are discredited by claiming that you know better than the top 500 scientists in America what a valid scientific approach is.

R: As I pointed out, a junior high school student can see that your survey is non-objective. Terms like “great” and “top” scientists have no real meaning unless they are specifically defined. And belonging to some non-objective, biased organization does not automatically make scientists objective thinkers. On the contrary, it would tend to have the opposite effect. Organizations like AMS tend to have non-objective agendas, as I pointed out.

Y: The paper you linked is a caricature of post-hoc rationalization and circular reasoning,

R: The reasoning is fairly straightforward. Please explain specifically how you disagree with it (ID can be falsified, evolution cannot be):

“If it could be shown that biological systems like the bacterial flagellum that are wonderfully complex, elegant, and integrated could have been formed by a gradual Darwinian process (which by definition is non-telic), then intelligent design would be falsified on the general grounds that one doesn't invoke intelligent causes when purely natural causes will do. In that case Occam's razor finishes off intelligent design quite nicely…. On the other hand, falsifying Darwinism seems effectively impossible. To do so one must show that no conceivable Darwinian pathway could have led to a given biological structure.”

http://www.arn.org/docs/dembski/wd_isidtestable.htm

Y: . If you read it carefully you'll see that on each "scientificity" criteria given by Dembski, he provides for ID either an erroneous, autoreferent argument.

R: I don’t believe Dembski’s instances of falsifiability are erroneous. Can you show why they are?

R: "actually, Sandage had "cynicism" about the nature of reality due to the preconceptions of the naturalist view."

Y: The correct term would be "neutrality". It is the taste of reality. Giving it a qualifying name only illustrates Sandage bias.

R: I agree that "neutrality” is the objective view. Naturalism is not neutral; it presupposes natural explanations for everything. Hence this forced Sandage into what he considered a cynical attitude, because he realized a naturalist explanation for the universe was impossible.

R: "His (Sandage) view was not based on feelings but on evidence"

Y: The examples given are based on personal interpretation, not on evidence. You don't seem to see the difference.

R: I was not describing my personal opinion, but the opinion of Alan Sandage:

"I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing."

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/quotes.html#n05

People who don’t believe the “fine-tuning” evidence of God’s existence probably won’t believe any evidence. However, scientists who are open minded, especially those who study cosmology, are more likely to appreciate the implications of fine tuning.

The degree of fine-tuning is difficult to imagine. Dr. Hugh Ross gives an example of the least fine-tuned of the above four examples in his book, The Creator and the Cosmos, which is reproduced here:

One part in 1037 is such an incredibly sensitive balance that it is hard to visualize. The following analogy might help: Cover the entire North American continent in dimes all the way up to the moon, a height of about 239,000 miles (In comparison, the money to pay for the U.S. federal government debt would cover one square mile less than two feet deep with dimes.). Next, pile dimes from here to the moon on a billion other continents the same size as North America. Paint one dime red and mix it into the billions of piles of dimes. Blindfold a friend and ask him to pick out one dime. The odds that he will pick the red dime are one in 1037. (p. 115)

R: "By the way, you didn't answer my questions about Havok and Anonymous"

Y: Where do we see logical reasoning exposed to you, that you don't seem able to grasp? Just about anywhere. For example according to me it was the case when I looked at the debate "A Moral Argument as Proof of God’s Existence", all along the dozens of messages prior to October 8, 2011 2:12 AM.

R: Again, you continue to avoid specifically answering my question. I asked for a specific point or argument by Havok or Anonymous that you felt was strong and you again gave a vague, general answer.

R: "It's easy to sit and write books to a believing and devoted crowd of disciples without having your ideas tested."

Y: I fully agree, and this is a pretty good description of religion and the Scriptures.

R: I think a better example may be your vague and non-specific answers which don’t allow for testing.

Y: But there is only so much time I can spend reading such literature and arguing around it, especially as, in my view, you have gotten impervious to reason thus making any discussion progress impossible. I'm not sure I'll pursue very much around here.

R: That’s an enlightening conclusion, considering you prefer to dwell in the realm of ambiguity and prefer not to address specific questions.

Like Havok, Anonymous and atheist front people like Richard Dawkins, when it comes to specifics, you all seem to be at a loss for words.

I suppose your gut instincts tell you it’s better to flee than to face reality. The question for each one of you is this,

“Is your desire to flee from the truth merely an unconscious defense mechanism or is there also a conscious and willful rebellion against the knowledge of God?”

In the case of Alan Sandage, he was able to recognize his cynicism with regard to this question and he had the wisdom to change his mind. Hopefully some day you will do the same. I pray you all do.

Yet, it is unlikely that Sandage would want to be a part of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS - the only group of scientists allowed to be in your poll)because the NAS is opposed to Intelligent design and quotes by Sandage show he was supportive of Intelligent design:

"The world is too complicated in all its parts and interconnections to be due to chance alone. I am convinced that the existence of life with all its order in each of its organisms is simply too well put together. Each part of a living thing depends on all its other parts to function. How does each part know? How is each part specified at conception? The more one learns of biochemistry the more unbelievable it becomes unless there is some type of organizing principle - an architect for believers." - Alan Sandage

So, in other words, it doesn't really matter how many awards a scientist may achieve, according to NAS. In their eyes, a scientist who supports ID could never be considered a "great" scientist.

Rick, Sandage is an astronomer. As such he seems no more qualified to speak about biology than you or I.Since the positive evidence for ID seems to be non-existent, and the whole ediface of ID built upon fallacious arguments and (will-full) misunderstandings, I don't see that we need to treat Sandage's claims as authoritative in any sense.

It is interesting that you are able to disregard the overwhelming consensus of biologists, but accept (seemingly without hesitation) the claims of anyone whose opinion you believe supports your case. You seem to specialise in motivated reasoning and confirmation bias.

"Rick, Sandage is an astronomer. As such he seems no more qualified to speak about biology than you or I."

I take issue with this statement for a number of reasons. Firstly, ID is not based solely on biology. The fine tuned cosmos is evidence of ID in many different respects. Sandage was clearly an expert on the cosmos.

Secondly, the main issues with regard to ID as proof or abiogenesis as proof are not so much the scientific points but the logic used to explain the points. There are at least 5 paradoxes in abiogenesis that pose serious obstacles to it as a valid theory. The explanations people like Dawkins offer are so logically flawed that they tend to support divine agency and ID, not abiogenesis. When I have time I'd like to post an article outlining these paradoxes.

"It is interesting that you are able to disregard the overwhelming consensus of biologists, but accept (seemingly without hesitation) the claims of anyone whose opinion you believe supports your case."

Again - I refer to the seriously flawed logic behind the conclusions, not the scientific discoveries themselves.

Followed a link to your blog from Flickr. Great find! I want to commend you for defending the faith so skillfully and so tirelessly. When someone takes a stand for Christ, the opposition springs into action, targeting that person, often piling on until the individual is drained. It's delicate tightrope to walk then, finding the best balance between responding to every post and ignoring trolls. Again, I commend you. I just wanted to say something encouraging—anything—no matter how insignificant, rather than read and leave quietly. Your efforts will be rewarded, my brother. All God's best!

Thanks for your encouraging note. I've been very busy and apologize for the late reply, but just wanted to reply. Better late than never!

I'm glad to know that the art and images at Flickr are found in searches and provoke thought. I don't believe that there is a "right way" to promote the gospel, but that we should surrender whatever gifts we have to God and see how He leads us to use them. The sower helps prepare the soil and sows seed, but doesn't necessarily bear fruit.

There is often an emphasis on bearing visible fruit a certain way in the Christian community, being politically correct, being a part of a large organization, as opposed to encouraging people to seek God and follow convictions, doing simple work that God has shown them to do, no matter the scale.